Taking Off and Landing
The Emerging Church, Pt.6: Sustaining the Project
Leave a Comment
In the next in the series on the future of Emergent, Steve details the history of the evangelical emergence, particularly in terms of the structures that were put in place to help proliferate the thinking and intellectual end of the evangelical movement. Revive Us Again is a good place to start to get a grasp on the historical elements of all of this.
The comparison of the current state of Emergent to the evangelical movement of the 1940s brings up a good point about where the dissenting evangelical thought must go if the valid theological statements it makes are to alter the course of the future. In one sense, I believe that history is a providential thing, and that God will call the church forward to live and be for the next generation, in faithfulness and creativity, and thus, our attempts to answer “what’s next” in terms of establishing structures could be answering the wrong questions. The correlary to that, however, is that the church is forever in need of concrete expression of how this faithfulness and creativity are manifested.
For the past generation, this was accomplished in the proliferation of churches, of seminaries (Fuller), of newsletters and media (Christianity Today). For the most part, in the current scene, the ideas of what lies beyond the individualist evangelicalism are simply that: ideas. And while Christian theology has a rich history of speculation and intellectual achievement, ultimately, the tension that exists within theology is that all speculation ultimately must be incarnated.
For Christians, speculation concerning God rests in a particular incarnation, namely Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. Augustine fleshed this out in terms of the church, saying that the ecclesia is the “body of Christ”, linking the body to the Head, and thus, making the church the incarnated expression of Christ. As such, what cannot be incarnated into the practices of the church (the persons in allegiance to Christ), ultimately falls short of its goal as being fully “Christian”. What cannot be given mysterious incarnational form ultimately finds itself in contrast to a God who found delight in becoming human. Hence, the Eucharist is more than just bread and wine, but a mystical expression of God’s presence, etc.
As such, for speculation concerning the future of evangelical thought to remain simply that–speculation–is to render it ultimately fruitless. It is mistaken, on the other hand, I think, to say that, for that reason, we should marry up doctrine to the best available model for carrying it, as modern evangelicals have done in terms of political parties. This ultimately dilutes the Gospel to contained form which allows for little latitude in terms of how the Gospel might truly be, making God into a Republican, Democrat, white or black. The most recent gathering at a Louisville church for the sheer purpose of opposing Democratic fillibustering is the most glaring example of this crass marriage.
What must happen for these thoughts recieve proper incarnation is for this new thinking to find its way into the expressions of the church, in the practices of the body: not only in their thinking, but in their spending, their commitments, their proclamations. Linking this theologizing up to anything less than the gathering of the saints will lead to either a truncating of the Gospel, as seen in the politicizing of issues, or a disembodied wandering of thought, as seen in some speculative theology. There is always a place for speculation, but it must ultimately land somewhere, if only tenatively. I’ll not argue for an eternally descriptive social form of the Gospel, but if the Gospel does not create its own home, someone will inevitably find a lesser home to shove it into.
Steve makes a good point that the future structures that will house the thought of whatever lies beyond 20th century evangelicalism will not be handed down at no cost. But I would argue that with the continued conglomeration of media, i.e. the creation of a few purveyors of media information, what will be more and more necessary is the church, which is able to operate outside the mass propogation structures of yesterday, and transform people. The future begins with the church, as it always has.
Darkness on the Edge of Dallas
4 Comments
In case anyone cares, tonight I have tickets to see the patron saint of all that is good and right with rock n’ roll:
Bruce Springsteen. Feel free to call and wish me well.
Our rocker, who art in Jersey
Springsteen be thy name
Thy music come
Thy voice be sung
On Earth
As it is in Asbury Park.
Give us this day our tunes
As we give tunes
To those that don’t get why the Boss matters.
Lead us not in the radio schlock,
But deliver us from pop.
For thine is the E-Street
And the Badlands
And the stage forever.
Judgment and Love
4 Comments
“I got God on my side/ I’m just trying to survive/ But if what you do to survive/ Kills the thing you love/ Fear is a powerful thing/ It can turn your heart black you can trust/ It’ll take your God-filled soul/ and fill it with devils and dust”
–Bruce Springsteen
“When we judge other people, we confront them in a spirit of detachment, observing and reflecting as it were from the outside. but love has neither time nor opportunity for this. IF we love, we can never observe the other person with detachment, for he is always and at every moment a living claim to our love and service.”
–Dietrich Bonhoeffer
More and more, I am convinced that when Jesus offers a prescriptive way of weakness and rejection for the Gospel, this is the way that is to penetrate our way of being. The ways of temptation that offer the church an avenue to be a political force for coercive change are just that: temptations to a lesser god. The mandates may be passed, but the battle will be lost, as the church will have passed from a community of pilgrims to a police state, ruling by law rather than by hope and the persistence of failure to be respected.
When falling into the temptation to legislate or force the hand of the ways of the world that are contrary to the Gospel, we risk letting the ways of the world collapse under their own weight. The church builds a world that allows people to follow Christ, applauding when the ways of governments or cultures coinside with the ends of Christ, but not trusting them to have the same ways in mind. Rather, the church should affirm the parts of, in Augustine’s language, the earthly city, that are pointed towards God, but remember that the church is a people on the way towards a different city.
Not one of force.
Not one of political coercion.
Not one of injustice.
But one of faithfulness:
where the practices and ends of the church are of one mind, where the ends do not justify the means, and where the vision and ways of God prevail by patience and suffering and not by violence.
The Emerging Church, Part 5: A Ghost is Born
15 Comments
Last night, as I watched Jeff Tweedy and the boys play downtown Houston, I was reminded once again of what makes good music. Both times I’ve seen Wilco, they remind me of a perfect mix of rockstar and musician. On lead guitar, Nels Cline looks almost completely apoplectic as he tries to rip one more last note out of his beaten Stratocaster. The pianist mimics Pete Townshend on his guitar numbers. Meanwhile, Jeff Tweedy, the locus and genius of Wilco, looks almost uncomfortable in the spotlight. He apologizes for griping at a pestering fan in the front row; his sallow cheeks betray his recent attempt at giving up smoking; he barely smiles. His appearance is that of one who plays music for his life, but is never fully at home with giving it to this many people at once.
Wilco: the prototypical band of diverse personalities, that despite their differences in style, manages to harmonize in pure genius.
In many ways, this is the picture of the Emergent church, as Steve has brought it forth. In the next installment, moving from the “what-it-is” section to the “how-to” section”, we move into the pragmatic region of what the church is. What is the relationship between what the church is and what it does? Or, relating it to the question at hand, given that those dissatistfied with the state of the church at large are not particularly sure who they are yet, can they actively form a church?
It begs the chicken/egg question of which comes first: Christians or the church? If you ask some sociologists of religion, you’ll find the answer that people of a certain disposition are drawn to the order of religion, and thus, in a way, the idea of church exists before the people, needing the people to bring it into being. If you ask most theologians, you’ll find a range of answers to the question, boiled down to essentially two options:
The church exists by virtue of Jesus being. Because Jesus is, the body of Christ does, regardless of the existence of actual members present.
Or…
The church exists by virtue of the church being present. Because Jesus has established the church, the body of Christ can exist, but in some cases does not yet.
The first group would locate what is essential about being “church” in the sacraments, that in the bread, wine, and preached Word, the body of Christ exists. People partake of these things and are made a part of the church. The second group, rather, locates the essence of “church” in the relations between people, that people coming together is what makes up the church, which is what Steve proposes.
And to some degree, I agree. I believe that something very real happens in Communion and in the preaching of the Gospel, but apart from its enacting by people, the church does not yet come to pass. But where I differ is in saying that the grouping of people together is not what exclusively makes the church. While what is needed in the Emergent movement, if it is to have a future, is for it to offer a new social alternative vision of the church–new ways of interacting as a group–what I am not sure is possible is the formation of some new identity apart from the identity that already exists in the church.
In other words, no new vision of the church can be given apart from the vision of the church that already exists. Breaking off and forming a “new” church is impossible in that any new forms always borrow their categories and thinking from what already exists. If all the like-minded of this new creature came together apart from the existing body of Christ, they would cut themselves off from the very resources that enable them to be church in the first place: the community of faith in a geographical place, the fellowship of the table, and most importantly, the diversity of the Spirit’s giftings that comes as a result of being grouped not according to common interests, but by a common calling.
My biggest concern with Emergent is that it will be, in the truest sense, a club–formed around something other than the Gospel that cannot be contained–and not recognize that the manifold expressions within its own camp are not a problem, but a testimony to the impossibility of founding a church around a common cause.
Just as I watch the opposite showmanship of Jeff Tweedy and his Townshend-channeling pianist, there is something common there: a desire for good music, and the combining of disparate attributes towards a common calling: to be a part of great rock n’ roll. Similarly, the church cannot survive as a club of like minds, but only like-calling, that of Jesus to those that we would not have chosen for ourselves.
Bringing It To a Head
8 Comments
Saw this this morning, and couldn’t help but think that this will be cataclysmic one way or another.
I grew up listening to James Dobson on the radio. Focus on the Family put out this radio drama series called “Adventures in Odyssey” that I listened to on every car trip I can remember growing up, and frankly, as far as radio dramas go, they were pretty good. I’m a big fan of putting the flesh on the bones and letting a dramatic interpretation play out the Gospel, as that is what churches do every day, like it or not. Our actions are the “acting out” of the Gospel.
Somewhere around college, I had a falling out with Dobson, not on behalf of his parent-raising techniques, but over Greek translation. Dumb? Maybe. Several years back, before the infamous TNIV got everybody’s panties in a wad, Dobson and Wayne Grudem spearheaded an effort to shoot down the precursor to it, the NIVI, which to my knowledge you can still get in England. Anyway, as I read about how a counselor was throwing his weight around in matters of Greek translation, I began to become disenchanted with the whole thing. The whole Dobson thing, I mean.
And so, I appreciate what he does in terms of advocating that families are central to raising kids. That one to me seems self-evident, that families are the way that kids are formed, for better or for worse, and so it stands to reason that good, healthy families are the foundation for healthy kids. And if Dobson, as a trained counselor, had stuck with that, things would have been fine.
Somewhere around the mid-90s, however, his attentions branched out from family raising, from writing books about how to raise kids, a series of wider concerns: gay marriage, gender roles. And while these are related to his central training (the foundations of families), Dobson is not a theologian. His training is from USC in family therapy, and it baffles me how he continues to take on issues tangential to counseling. To be fair, they’re central to the issues that counseling holds–the nature of the family, the formation of children, etc. But when he stepped out and supported a Bible translation based on its gender translations on his presuppositions alone, and not on the faithful Greek translation, he lost me.
On May 1, what will happen? A counselor has brought a fight on an issue ultimately outside his field to his door, and the fight has responded, non-violently at that. And so, the bigger question is begged:
As Christians, we follow the one who, as Athanasius put it, was the ideal human. In Christ, we understand what it means to be truly human. Can we, thus, translate this to making criterion calls on issues outside our field of training? For example, I dabble in economics, because I find it fascinating the way that some countries remain poor and some drown in wealth. But I am no economist. My understanding of the discipline is scant at best. Is it wrong for me, as I hear the words of Luke calling for liberation of the poor as being central to Jesus’ self-understanding, to call for economic justice? Is it wrong for Dobson, as he reads the Scriptural admonitions concerning homosexuality, to step outside his expertise and critique the gay movement?
In Theology and Social Theory, the main text for a class I’m auditing this Spring, I’ve run into this question repeatedly as I read it, and the ultimate answer for me is “sometimes”. Sometimes, I think that the admonitions of Scripture bear themselves out in self-evident ways. If you dig a pit, you’re going to fall in it. You can’t see well with a stick in your eye. Other times, I think the admonitions only make sense by faith in a God that is drawing us towards the future we cannot see yet. And so, we advocate for the poor and the downtrodden; we feed the hungry; we make peace–though in the present, it makes no sense to do so. In other words, we critique the experts in their own field based on faith judgments.
So, as much as I’d like to say that Dobson is out of his league and should leave that argument to those intimately involved with the subject, that means I’d have to stop advocating for economic equity. And I’m sorry, but Cathy just lost her house again, and seeing her sleep on the street just doesn’t sit well with me.
I Have Seen the Future and It Is
5 Comments
…Hilarious. If you read this with a straight face, you’re comatose.
…Up for grabs. In case you’ve been in the aforementioned coma for the last month, John Paul II died, and Benedict XVI, the former Josef Ratzinger was named pope. Based on his past record, it should be an interesting papacy–either “interesting” in the “surprising” way, or in the way meant by the Chinese curse of ‘may you live in an interesting time’.
Feeding Frenzy
6 Comments
I have this terrible habit of keeping no less than three books spinning at once, mostly because I always have no less than a hundred books in the que waiting to be picked up. It’s the merciless nature of having enough bookshelves for all your books: the books can be patient. They can bide their time, and they will outwait you. Anna Karenina has been waiting for over a century, and I suspect she will not tire soon.
So, in the last three days, I’ve taken down the following:
Theories of Culture–Kathryn Tanner. She’s a theologian at the Universit of Chicago, explicating the nature of “culture” and how we should understand it theologically. Frankly, I was disappointed with how much I agreed with the book. When I think “University of Chicago” in terms of theology, a caricature comes to mind that I’m sure bears no resemblance to the people there.
In this book, she analyzes the history of “culture”, and then gives the theological understandings of it, finally giving her take on the subject. In short, she understands Christian culture as being a fluid enterprise, forever interacting with culture and being influenced by it by necessity. After reading her, I’m rethinking some things. Hmmmm…..
On Bullshit–Harry Frankfurt. Great title, and, suprisingly, a good little read. 60 pages; you can take it down in an hour because the type is big. Don’t pay 10$ for this essay; just go kill an hour sometime at your local Barnes and Noble with a tall latte and tell me you love me. In about an hour, Frankfurt, professor emeritus of Philosophy from Princeton, dissects the nature of “bullshit”, ending up defining it as “having little or no concern for the nature of things. Whereas “lies” or “deceit” play by the rules of truth, “bullshit” is just something you say that has no connection to any truth or un-truth.
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism–Max Weber. The book on the right by Milbank refers to it a lot, so it was time to give Max his due. As one of the big dogs in the history of the sociology of religion/economics, he winds up viewing religion as a purely historical process, functioning in society in ways that ultimately support capitalist endeavor. If you’ve ever wondered why the Religious Right is so in favor of a free market, look no further. I don’t buy everything he says; he oversimplifies Calvin and misinterprets some other stuff, but if you want to know where the term “protestant work ethic” came from, this is your guy.
Gilead–Marilynne Robinson. Finally finished after plugging along over a month of lunch breaks. Absolutely brilliant. It takes the letters of one man and stretches them over a gaggle of lives. Think about reading the memoirs of your father who died when you were seven, and wondering why three generations of your family have been preachers and why you feel compelled to do the same. This is a book that will stay with you.
This has been your weekend writing report. I’d like to thank Jennifer Adams and Celina Varella for the use of their house, Tazo tea for keeping me awake, and Princeton University for being brave enough to publish a book with “bullshit” in the title.
Heaven on Ice
7 Comments
Consider this a completely non-theological, yet absolutely serious reflection:
A couple of friends have recently tossed up the question of “So what would heaven be like?”, and come up with things like beer, good friends, good music, and backgammon. So, here we go:
PEOPLE: The place would be full of all kinds of people–the vets across the street, only making sense; my roommates; my past roommates; friends from all over the nation and world. I’ve always viewed the afterlife as a place where goodbyes never happen, and where the stories never get old because they just get better with time, which pretty much means they go on forever. God is all around us; he drops in, has a burger, tells great stories about that time that Adam discovered cacti.
And my wife sits with me. After everyone goes home for the evening, provided that it’s not the Tuesday-Thursday slumber party for all our friends, we sit up playing backgammon or drinking tea over the coast or watching a movie we both like. Or drinking beer while the kids play in the yard. And there is all the time in the world.
PLACE: Sunny mostly. A great breeze is mandatory. The sand doesn’t stick to my feet, seeing as the house is modest and coastal. Out the back door is a mountain range and a forest, and the weather gets stays around 70-80 by day and 40-50 by night. There are no mosquitos, or rats, and the dogs never pee indoors. The sun rises and sets over the water. I can always find the book I’m looking for.
MUSIC: Miles Davis shows up on Thursdays with Coltrane to play a set or two. Fleck is a Wednesday night regular along with Bill Monroe. Modest Sheist, as my roommate calls them, puts on a killer show, though they’re forever opening up for Springsteen and U2’s twin bill every Friday. The rest of the week, the eternal jukebox in my head plays out everything except Kenny Chesney and rap.
FOOD: Good home cooking. Fried okra, baked chicken, and ________. And Shiner and Bluebell ice cream. And couscous.
GOD: Everywhere. The church is the constant companion, and we do not tire of each other. We get along, through differences and misunderstandings, because we look at the same God, who is all in all, and know that it will all be fine.
Babies Everywhere
3 Comments
About four years ago, having just returned from the UK, I drove to the hospital I used to live across the street from to see the newly born Libby Kate Grant, the first child of my friend Jonathan. Last night, the scene was repeated as Jennifer gave birth to Grant #2: Lucas Ryden Grant. Jonathan is a bear of a man, barrel-chested, stocky, and you can see it in little Luke. Barely eight hours old, Jennifer sat and talked with myself and another visitor while Jonathan sat with Luke in a chair, watching Luke’s first Red Sox game. It was a beautiful sight to watch a squinting newborn try to make out Manny Ramirez. Start them young. Indoctrinate them early, and when they are old, they will not depart from the way.
I was holding the swaddling babe after I came in, knotted up in his blanket as his little mouth opened and closed after milk I had none of, when I felt a little rumble. Sure enough, I was holding Luke for his first shat, a true priveledge. If you’ve never seen baby’s first shat, it’s really amazing: tar. No form, no character–just primoridal goo resembling blueberry mix.
As Luke gets older, his poop will take form, shape, character. If he’s his father’s son, his poops will be the stuff of legend. He’ll learn the vocabulary of constipation, hemmroids, bowels. He’ll come out of the stalls, settling his belt buckle, whistle slowly and warn the next person who goes in. If he is his father’s son, this first attempt at poop will be a faint memory as he moves on in his youth to monster dumps, real toilet cloggers.
He’ll probably, as his father, make good choices, some dumb choices, talk about exercising, and love people too much. He’ll do things like drive in the middle of the night to see friends and stay at the hospital for church members, and love high school kids, and devote himself to the church and the love of God. Hopefully, these too are genetic fallacies that pass like hair color.
And I was sure, as I watched Jonathan recline before the Yanks trouncing the Sox, that this was a son after the father’s heart.
Your Love is a Life Taker
9 Comments
In light of the death of John Paul II, it seems more and more appropriate to revisit what many have seen as his most important writing, Evangelium Vitae, which links together all life and life-taking in a way that seems mostly foreign to our current political state. I’ll dog on Tom DeLay for his skewed sense of what is valid life, as does the cartoon, but my criticism has mostly to do with his being a hypocritical politician for cozying up to the Religious Right and then being under investigation by the Ethics committee on multiple counts. But to be fair, his ethic of life is no less skewed than that of the majority of Western society.
So long as life is attached to an ethic of individual choice and liberty, and not to a view of life as upheld and mandated by Providence, the tendency forever exists to divide living into paramaters that the witness of Scripture has no understanding of. In the same Scriptures are words upholding all of our arbitrated categories of life. I’ll not slip into a monistic understanding of “all things are the same”, but in some sense, they are: created by the same God, refurbished by the same Spirit, redeemed by the same Jesus.
This is not to provide commentary on Terry Schaivo, except to say that I think it’s disgusting how her life was twisted as a political slogan for either side. This is also not to provide commentary on the corrupt practices of Wal-Mart or the ethics of state executions. It is, however, to say that all life has to be considered as one and the same: that life is not an option among other options, and that to filter out some life from others is not only silly, but un-Christian as well.
